BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES

JANUARY 9, 2007

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mickley at 7:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Kessler, Dick Mickley, Harry McMannis, Barbara Timmons, Kelly Thornton, Greg Faulkner Excused: Nevin Taylor

OTHERS PRESENT: Zoning Inspector McCoy, City Planner Delong, Clerk Patterson,

Brian O’Kane, John Cunningham, Bruce Somerfel

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting on December 11, 2006 were approved as distributed.

The election of officers was inadvertently left off the agenda. Mrs. Timmons moved to hold election of officers at the end of the meeting and take care of the Old Business first, seconded by Mr. Faulkner; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

OLD BUSINESS:

Requesting 70 sq. ft. shopping center sign vs. 40 sq. ft. shopping center sign permitted to be located at the SR 31 entrance to the Mill Valley Plaza located in the B-1 zoning district. Filed by Sign Com, Inc., 527 W. Rich St., Columbus, OH 43215

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms. McCoy stated the members should have received revised drawings of the sign showing 40 sq. ft. and 54.25 sq. ft.

COMMENTS OF REQUESTER: Mr. Bruce Somerfel of Sign Com addressed the Board on behalf of the Casto Development Corporation. He noted that they are sympathetic to Mill Valley’s neighborhood aesthetics and comments. Drawings before the Board were for a 40 sq. ft sign, a 54.25 sq. ft. sign and a 46 sq. ft. sign. There is not a whole lot of difference between the 40 and 46 sq. ft. but there is quite a bit of difference between the 40 and the 54.25 sq. ft., namely in the height of letter. The 40 sq. ft. sign allows for 5-1/2” tall lettering and the 54 sq. ft. allows for 9” tall lettering. Mr. Somerfel stated the sign is aesthetically pleasing rather than the sign that the code calls for which is a sign 25’ tall and 40 sq. ft. Feels the developer has put forthwith a nice design and material concept to keep the center as attractive as possible. Ideally, the request would be to get 54.25 sq. ft.

Mrs. Timmons commented that the builder has a sign out there which is low and very visible coming from the north. Coming off the freeway, it’s going to be hard to see anything, and they’re going to have to go to the light to turn without causing an accident. She feels word of mouth will advertise the tenants in the strip mall itself.

Mr. Thornton said the applicant seems to be hung up on the 12’ tall sign. He asked why adjustments were made to the base in the different drawings. The drawing depicting 54.25 sq. ft. sign shows the base is 2’-6”. Why couldn’t’ this size base be the model across the board? Mr. Somerfel said it can be.

Mrs. Timmons suggested the sign being eye level like the sign at Rite Aid.

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS: Mr. John Cunningham addressed the Board as a citizen, but added that he has been on the City Planning Commission for 12 years. He noted that when a variance comes before Planning Commission, it’s the last resort or no other alternative. Over the years, he has had opportunities to check with Legal Counsel as to what constitutes unnecessary hardship and asked what the applicant had to do to demonstrate unnecessary hardship. He referred to Section 1129.12, Variances, it is very clear that variances shall not be granted unless there is demonstration of unnecessary hardship. In Mr. Cunningham’s research, “unnecessary hardship is a term commonly used in a zoning law to justify the granting of a variance from a zoning regulation. The applicant must demonstrate that under applicable zoning regulations, the applicant is deprived of ALL economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent, financial evidence.” The Marysville Code states that variances shall not even be granted on the grounds of convenience or profit. He noted in both meetings, the applicant has provided the Board a 40 sq. ft. sign and has said he could do a 40 sq. ft. sign. Part of the demonstration the applicant must present to the Board is a literal interpretation of the code prevents them from being able to do what they need to do with the land and C) in 1129.13 states that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. He noted that the developer of McDonald’s, the same developer of this building, decided to put this building on the back of the lot and is saying that where they had to put this building has presented to them an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Cunningham does not feel by any stretch of the imagination that this applicant has demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. In fact, by their own admission, they have basically said this is not an unnecessary hardship. He quoted Mr. Somerfel tonight by saying “it’s a little bit of hardship” with the out lots in front, which was a part of their own doing. He does not feel under the provisions of the Marysville Code that the Board has the wherewithal to grant a variance at all.

Mr. Brian O’Kane addressed the Board. He lives in Mill Valley. The rules are set to permit a 40 sq. ft. sign. Why have rules if they are not going to be enforced.

Mr. Mickley stated he sees more than just hardship. He cited 1129.13, special conditions and circumstances are peculiar to this particular land. He mentioned the sign at the veterinary building, which is not the same zoning district, but they have a bigger sign and that’s been mentioned by the applicant. Ms. McCoy stated the veterinary business did not need a variance; it was a permitted sign for a single business, not a shopping center. Mr. Thornton asked if the shopping center had no sign and the front building had a sign, that sign could be larger, correct. Ms. McCoy stated the sign could be up to 72 sq. ft. and 25’ in height.

Mr. Mickley cited from 1129.13, deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the same terms. Perhaps other things could be done. Mr. Cunningham is correct in stating special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The variance shall not be substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Mickley stated an amendment was tabled at the last meeting.

Mr. Cunningham suggested that 1129.12 stated variance shall not be granted on grounds of convenience and profit unless there is demonstration of unnecessary hardship. He cited 1129.13 (a)(5) “A narrative statement demonstrating that the requested variance conforms to the following standards:” They have to conform to every one of those standards, not one or the other.

He noted Planning Commission is recommending to City Council, language to set standards for the commercial districts such as Coleman’s Crossing.

The motion on the table is to amend the request to be no more than 54.25 sq. ft. in size, 7’ face over height, 7-3/4” cabinet with an additional 2” reduction in height from the face 4’-8-1/2” down to 2’-8-1/2”, 12” high. Mr. Thornton moved to withdraw his amendment, seconded by Mr. Mickley.

Mr. Thornton stated the applicant presented the Board with a proposed sign at 40 sq. ft. and asked if this is the sign that would be built or would he put up a 20’ sign. Mr. Somerfel doesn’t see that happening, but he wasn’t sure exactly what the developer would decide on as far as the material for the sign.

Motion to grant the variance and the question put, stood:

Mr. Kessler YES Mrs. Timmons NO Mr. Thornton NO Mr. Mickley NO

Mr. McMannis NO Mr. Faulkner NO

Variance denied.

NEW BUSINESS:

Elect Chairman - Mr. McMannis nominated Mrs. Timmons. Mrs. Timmons declined the nomination due to her travel schedule. Mrs. Timmons nominated Mr. Taylor. Voice vote was unanimous. Mr. Taylor was elected Chairman.

Elect Vice-Chairman – Mr. Mickley nominated Greg Faulkner. Voice vote was unanimous. Mr. Faulkner was elected Vice Chairman.

Rules of Procedure were reviewed. No changes were made.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.